merrick garland's nomination as of sunday will be outstanding for 250 days. the previous record was 125. for one single nomination. oh, by the way, that nominee, louie brandeis, was confirmed at the end of that time period. i think it is right there is no right on the part of any one president or any one nominee to a confirmation process. there is more important interest at state. the really fragile but important point that make is about the court as an institution, the supreme court's legitimacy. it has its power not from some official mandate. it does not come from article 3. that's where its jurisdiction comes from. its power comes from the fact that we generally perceive and have perceived historically, it to be an institution that operates not without regard to politics but in the manner that is not blatantly and overtly political. it shows some respect for judicial power and responsibility. that's why we have things like judicial doctrine. when the senate holds a seat hostage on the express understanding not that there are concerns about the nominee, who

committee has weathered the storm after refusing to hold confirmation hearings for judge merrick garland's nomination to the supreme court. it was a move that angered six term senator. political expert eli yokley says grassley has built up enough stay power in his state--- turning out consistently decisive wins during his tenure. 5307 people know him pretty well in iowa and they like him. hes been there a long time. hes made it a point to be there now 83--- grassley will be pushing 90 by the time his this next term is finished--- leaving many are wondering when the senator will call it quits. yokley says the democraphics in iowa have been changing as they have across the country--- so when grassley does retire-his seat may be up for grabs. reportin 9 news. stay with your 24 hour news tonight's weather ends very quietly with a clear sky and a cool night. overnight lows into the lower to middle 30s bringing a frosty start to our wednesday. sunshine then takes over for the rest of the weekend after brief cool down the mercury responds nicely as a ridge of high pressure have a good night! tonight: clear

it's worth remembering that there is still a number nine in waiting -- judge merrick garland, nominated by president obama eight months ago this week, and whose nomination has been sitting on hold ever since. so where does that leave us? president-elect trump produced a list during the campaign, but of course he can nominate anyone he wants, and a republican senate is likely to confirm. legal scholar jonathan turley is a law professor at george washington university law school and a legal scholar. he was floated as a supreme court candidate himself, albeit by the libertarian candidate for president. jonathan turley is a law professor at george washington university law school and a legal scholar. he was floated as a supreme court candidate himself, although by the libertarian candidate for president. nice to have you. i'm trying to decide whether to say congratulations or sorry. jonathan: i was counting on that libertarian sweep. where did that go? soledad: the media was wrong about a lot of things. let's talk about what's at stake here. at the end of the day, you justices, one spot to

maybe conduct what i think to be a postmortem on president obama's nomination of his nomination of judge mayor garland and the one or more nominations that donald trump will have for the supreme court. with me to discuss all of this are too lively and influential thinkers and riders. on my right is ed whelan who is the president of the ethics and public policy center. he is a widely read blogger who contributes to the national review spends memos and he has served in all three branches of ever meant as a clerk to justice anthony scalia and as general counsel. he is a graduate of harvard law school. steve is a law professor at the university of texas. he writes for both academic and popular audiences and contributes to cnn about the supreme court. he is a graduate of the college and law school and has served on two committees, circuits. he's also a supreme court fellow here at the constitution center. let's look back on the garland nomination. in my correct that we are looking back on it. i get a lot of emails and op-ed saying there is still something president obama do. is there anything he can do to

in did not know what this is but it is that the constitution center so let's look back at of garland nomination i get a lot ofki females same distills on then-president can do. can he wet. >> no. i think the nomination is dead. >> i think there are some legal things between now maybe that will not happen in. >> when the senate will be in recess when obama couldll theoretically make a nomination to the supreme court but relatively none of those will happen. apart from the fact that he could not do a nomination. infin but the supreme court has said they have released 10 days for the power to be available. that is a long-shot possibility quick. >> satisfying end frivolous. >> so let's assume the nomination is dead.ation also from president obama as part of constitutional duty is any truth to that wet cement that card -- argumentrejd from both sides of these idol is clearly wrong. from the former obama wide house counsel. of wh and she would have recommended that they have in mind and that applies to all officers the cause of the restriction, and says nothing how we shall exercise its power through

obviously, you were not pleased with how senate republicans handled the garland nomination. i assume barring some miracle for your side, it is not going to be brought up during the lame duck. >> pray for that miracle. >> are you going to -- are you comfortable filibustering any pick that a president trump makes? and if that fear the nuclear response essentially by the republican srepublicans? >> first, i hope president trump picks a mainstream candidate. a mainstream candidate is something you may not agree with on every issue but believes in precedent and following the law. >> what does that mean -- can he nominate somebody in your mind that is, say, ted cruz? is he too conservative for you? >> i'm not going to get into if it is mainstream, you have to remember the last four nominees, two from president bush, two from president obama, got bipartisan support on the bench. if he doesn't nominate a mainstream candidate, we're going to go at him with everything we have or her. go at the candidate with everything we've got because this is so, so important. now, you know, senator

because, again you cover the hill and there were republican, remember after the judge merrick garland nomination and you have to mitch mcconnells of the world saying hang on, let's wait for the election. now it's looking like if there were to be a hillary clinton presidency you hear other republicans saying no, we don't want the voters to decide, we'll hold off for four years. >> this will be a furious fight within the republican party and senate republican conversation about whether or not to confirm, president clinton, if she does win, her nominee. you have republican senators like jeff flake saying we should consider the new administration's nominee. then you have others raising concerns about confirming any democratic justice ineincluding senator richard burr of north carolina. i obtained audiotape of him over the weekend where he said "i'm going to fight to keep that last seat vacant for four years in another four years we can try to fill that seat with a republican justice." so this is going to be the real dividing line within the senate republican conference even if the democrats do take

so he basically is making no apologies, mcconnell, that they blocked the garland nomination and have no plans to bring it up during a lame duck session of congress here in the final days of this congress and of the obama administration. there's some chatter that during that lame duck in the days ahead, president-elect trump may signal who his new pick would be before he's even sworn in. that may buy him some goodwill with conservatives he's going need for his broader agenda. it's something that's going to stick in the eye of democrats and new democrat leader and others in the senate may be upset about that. >> what are some of the names on trump's list? he made the list public, remember? >> it was unprecedented really. during the campaign he put together a list very specific, 21 names. largely put together by the conservative federalist society so democrats are very wary of this list. one name is senator mike lee of utah. he clerked for senator alito. a lot of people expected because lee is close to ted cruz and it was more about trump reaching out to cruz through lee. this morning l

lobbying those campaigns to be a ominee and do you expect that clinton will continue with garland's nomination? cat: she definitely has not committed to doing that so read what you will into it. >> and it's not just that there's one vacancy now. you look at the demographic table, the next president is going to have a whole bunch of those. it's always been baked in the cake for republicans, right? is that lame duck period going to be a period where, if clinton wins, you figure merrick garland is the safest pick and you should go with it or is everyone so entrenched active that it's just not going to happen? but she has not committed in any way to renominating him if this year comes and goes. cat: do you see anybody in the current obama cabinet who is likely to be held over or who could be held over in a democratic presidency? >> for example, i cover the education department and john king has only been the secretary since the beginning of this ear. there are some stakeholders in education who would like to see him stay on. so that's one possibility. >> i've wondered about jack lew remaining far

it is interesting that some of the republican senators who stood in the way of merrick garland's nomination to the supreme court, have said to some of their democratic counterparts they are embarrassed by what mitch mcconnell did and by what senator grassley did. the fact is, they know 17 supreme court justices were confirmed during the last years of presidential terms. they are quite aware of what they did. senator grassley is quite aware of what he did. and, again, it is regrettable and will not be forgotten. let's go to hell and -- helen in colorado. the line for independents. go ahead with the question. caller: my question is why aren't we the people being represented. the republicans seem to be going down corporatism, which does not represent the people and is not a healthy way for the country to be run. you do not run the country like a corporation. that is purely for profit and not for people. the democrats just do not seem to be making a clear argument about what they are doing. they're just not clear enough. we, the people, need to be represented. the republicans are acting like fa

president believes strongly that chief judge garland is the best person in america to fill a vacant seat on the supreme court, that's why the president nominated. presumably there are some republicans who agree. they agree for a variety of reasons, they agree in part because chief judge garland is the most experienced supreme court nominee in american history. he spent 19 years on the federal judiciary and no one can call into question his qualifications, certainly the non-partisan american bar association didn't call into question his qualifications, they rated him unanimously well qualified for the job. you had republicans who in the past who described chief judge garland as a consensus nominee, as somebody who is going to set aside his own political leanings and focus on a judge's responsibility to interpret the law. merrick garland led the investigation into the bombing in oklahoma city and played a key role in bringing to justice those who killed more than 100 americans in oklahoma city more than 20 years ago now so chief judge garland is somebody who is qualified, he's a man of impeccable character and a man who served his country and it

but eric garland's nomination will now be 250 days the previous record is 2025 for one single nomination and brandeis was confirmed at the end of that time period. so there is no right for anyone nominee but the fragile and important point to make and the power is not from the official mandate but from article three where the jurisdiction comes from from the fact that we have proceeded as starkly and without regard to politics so that narrative shows respect pet so have the judicial built -- judiciary doctrine so with the express understanding that even orrin hatch said was about as well qualified issue could imagine but simply the cause of a political calculation of the far side of the election to crystallize the view of the supreme court and in up process to have that potential to not have the legitimacy but if this goes on to where the supreme court is other than an instrument of political will. >> the more that is viewed as a political institution but if you make that political argument quick. >> it is important to distinguish based on that understanding of philosophy have agreed dea

judge merrick garland was nominated in march. he has not yet received a hearing or a vote. are dozens of vacancies on the lower federal courts. some of these nominees have been itg r rehan a year for senate action. i am notskg u at you would do regarding a specific nominee currently nominad. is that confusing enough? i want to know what you think the senate's responsibility is regarding nominations. ou ty gen hri and or aotanwhat ctea would you use to determine whether you would confirm a president's nominees to the ur let's start with pastor dixon -- unless you would rather i start with senator scott. mr. dixon: i think i will defer to my senator. >> this is how conversations work. mr. dixon: to my seated senator, yes. senator scott: a couple things. on the lower courts, bruce smith was just put on the bench within the last 24 months. mr. coggins from the upstate, other we held a hearing on. on the supreme court, in the last 100 years, the party that occupies the white house at the same time has a different party controlling the senate, the last 100 years, one time has the

garland. president obama nominated him shortly after justice antonin scalia died suddenly in februrary. the senate still has not moved towards his confirmation. if he's not confirmed--- the next president will have to appoint the next justice. and--- for a position that is supposed to avoid party lines --- the distinction couldn't be ce would reflect liberal values. amy howe her primary critera would be looking someone who is more sympathetic to campaign finance side and someone who would be very supportive of reproductive rightsand trump is promising to nominate a conservative justice like scalia. amy howe he has pledged to appoint pro life jsutices. i think he would also appoint a justice who felt very strongly about the second amendment right to bear armsbut the bench- will largely depend on the layout of the senate. in fact-if clinton wins--- republican senator ted cruz vowed to keep the seat open. cut the rest of sentence he noted the constitution does not require nine justices to sit on the bench. tb: 5239 the court continues to work no matter how many justices there are on the fl

. >>> president obama nominated garland in march as a supreme court justice and congress refusing to hold a confirmation expire with this session ending in mid-december. election coverage continues right now on www.abcactionnews.com as well as our free mobile app where you can find acceptance and concession speeches and president obama's remarks picture for the first time in 16 years his moore county has a new state attorney. abc action news reporter jarrod holbrook shows us the vision of andrew warren for changing the justice system. >> when you step into office what is the biggest change we can expect to see? >> the biggest thing we are trying to do is make sure we are allocating resources effectively and make sure we are targeting the crimes that pose the greatest threats to the community. right now it is not effective and that is one of the differences that i had with my opponent. will you be focusing on? >> we need to target the crimes that have been up in his moore county that keep me awake at night. murder, rape, domestic violence . >> reporter: will you be making any personal

what about merrick garland's nomination to the supreme court? sec. rnest: the president believes strongly that chief judge garland could fill the vacancy. there are some republicans who agree for a variety of reasons, in part because chief judge garland is the most it. supreme court nominee in american history. he spent 19 years on the federal judiciary and no one can call in to question his qualifications. certainly the nonpartisan american bar association did not call and question his qualifications. they rated him unanimously well-qualified for the job. people in the past described him as a consensus nominee, somebody who is going to set aside his own political leanings and focus on the judge's response ability to interpret the law. merrick garland is somebody who has served this country. he led the investigations of the bombing in oklahoma city and played a key role in bringing to justice those who killed one and 100 americans in oklahoma city more than 20 years ago now. chief judge garland is somebody who is qualified, a man of impeccable charact

folks to offer criticisms and whether or not i agree with them of what republicans did on the garland's nomination i have spent a lot of time criticizing law professors and others who claim that there is some sort of constitutional duty on the part of the senate. folks making the argument that i don't think they can -- given their past record on things actually believe and does not pass the laugh test project never criticize anyone for making political arguments against the republican point. that's exactly what we have ought to be debating in the political realm. what is the responsible course of conduct and what isn't? you indicated earlier that you thought if i heard you correctly the democrats would have been rewarded if they had taken the same course of conduct and of course i think democrats would have been forced to take the same course that but they might well a bin punished for doing so. what we have in this election is opportunity for the people to speak their voices and i think that's a good thing. >> other questions? right here. >> hi. in the event of two trump nominees on the court if

do you expect that secretary clinton will continue with judge merrick garland's nomination? >> you're asking me? let's put it this way, she does has not committed to doing that. to read what you will into the i know what i would read into it. it's not just that there is one vacancy now. it's that if you just look at the demographic table, next present lot whole bunch of those. it's always been baked in the cake for republicans, right? is that lame-duck period going to be a period where if clinton wins you think your merrick garland is like the safest big you can get, you should just go with the? or is anyone still so entrenched at this point it's just not going to happen, you know? but she has not committed in any way to renominating him if this year comes and goes. >> let me ask the panelists. do you see anybody in the current obama cabinet is likely to be held over or who could be held over in a democratic presidency? >> for example, i come the education department and john king has only been the secretary since the beginning of this year. there are some stakeholders in ed

that's judge merit garland who was nominated back in march of this year. ut their deciding to ignore merit garland. in addition to the personal injustice to mr. garland, the majority leader's ploy raught him to basic names of democratic accountability. he should have dictated respect for the majority. was this an appropriate strategy? was it dangerous? was it both? >> well, it was a successful one somewhere down the line in a different configuration of the senate. there will, i suspect, be some retribution or recrimination. it did harm and undermine two institutions, the court itself which has been hobbled by having only eight justices and the senate by suggesting that this should be or could be a part of how they operate. there were a number of senators who were saying they were willing to go another entire four years if hillary clinton had won without ever discharging this very basic duty of taking up their advising consent role. >> errol lewis, michael moore. thank you very much. >>> melania trump, a lot of people say a very different first lady than mos

in the near term, even with a trump filled vacancy seat, the one that merrick garland was nominated forlly getting back to the pre-scalia passing status quo with a conservative majority, but still with votes like justin kennedy and roberts who side with the more liberal justices and give progressives stroirks li s more liberal justices and give progressives stroirks ls some vt i think nerm term there will be an impact for sure. progressives like me, we were hoping to wake up to looking forward to a progressive majority on the supreme court. so absolutely it does mean an entrenched conservative majority, but the real impact will be if there are more vacancies opening up in the next year possibly justice beginburg, there could be a strong majority that could overturn things like roe vs. wade. >> and justice ginsburg has a serious workout regimen. she is stuff and in shape. no signs that she's ending -- >> not at all. >> but well into her 80s. and other justices in that same neighborhood. this president could have two or three openings. >> that's right. president trump may have more than o

like to see them do it because there's something outrageous that the maker -- that the merrick garland nominationust sat there. >> with the democrats and their nominee having won the popular vote overwhelmingly, to e.j.'s point, the power in power having denied even a hearing to the sitting president of the united states' nominee will attempt to do their hone blocking knowing that the voting rights act being completely finished, i mean, it's already gutted and being finished on the table. "roe v. wade" is on the table. everything democrats fought for for 50 years is on the table. what is the likelihood that democrats filibuster? >> democrats will try to do everything that they can. the voting rights issue is huge. the first time as weave talked about. the first time in 50 years that you have not had the full protection of the voting rhts act and the voting rights act was set in place because of voter suppression and not just voter suppression and not allowing blacks to go to the polls in the south and now we're seeing it all across the nation, but the democrats will have to fight, not only will t